Abadar

lordredraven's page

Organized Play Member. 103 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Organized Play characters.


Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

About to run this for my group starting saturday via Roll20. I'm worried about a sufficient hook for the party members. Most of the players have played in Crypt of the everflame that i adapted for 2e and i am thinking about using the opening encounter in Mask of the Living god to start the PCs in Kassen and have them meet the pathfinder agent. Instead the agent will arraign for them to meet and gather Andoran traders who are smuggling arms into Nirmathas (per the clandestine support that Andoran offers per Lands of conflict). They have to take the arms to Phaendar to the market festival to meet drop them off to Aubrin when all hell breaks loose. The PCS would be a new formed militia group from Kassen, and i want to emphasis that Nirmathas is taking a lull in the war with Multhane to re arm up and recruit (As best as a country of libertarian militas can). I like this as it is not so abrupt and it ties into what my players know of the world in real life. However, I am worried that not making them from Phaendar itself will weaken their connection to trying to save the town. Any thoughts on opening scenes to flesh out play before all hell breaks loose? Thanks

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
caps wrote:
Grimmzorch wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
On elemental bloodline / primal spells - is there any way to play a water power focused caster? Or would their powers be based off of ice like the old elemental bloodline ?
Water is specially the damage type not ice now.
Am I understanding you correctly that water is its own damage type now? Interesting!
So if you are a sorcerer with the elemental bloodline can you use spells from all four elements?

I believe so. However, some of the granted spells (like produce flame or burning hands) are modified to do damage of your element type instead of the type specified in the spell.

But I don't think water is its own damage type. For this effect, water, earth, and air all do bludgeoning damage.

So does burning hands become “soaking hands” and unleash a torrent of water doing bludgeoning damage ?

Yes.

And it gains the Water trait.

Is there a way to give it cold trait and damage? As silly sometimes as water/cold admixture was in days of yore cold sorcerer is kinda of a staple. (Glances around nervously for Disney ip police)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if I grok the meaning of power attack, since it is two attacks, if it's your first attack it's most likely at -5 to hit in exchange for an extra die? Extra die is good but in a system where -5 real drops your crit burst damage not sure it is a fair trade off

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Classes with solid heavy armor proficiencies, such as fighter and champion, will not skimp on proficiency with the lighter armors.

So happy about this. Favorite pfs character of the past decade was a dervish style paladin of Sarenrae. Glad to see that might be possible out of the box

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
lordredraven wrote:

If we are talking radical rewrites of the spell system why not tie it into the proficiency system. Make every spell or power tied to a school/sphere Ala 2nd edition. You have a proficiency rank in every school appropriate for your spell list. The spell level of the spell is the base level for someone trained in that school. If you are untrained, the spell requires a spell slot of higher. If you are an expert it requires a spell slot lower. And that reduction continues until legendary. But getting to legendary in a spell proficiency requires specialization. So a legendary necromancer at 17 would make all 1-3 level necromancy spells into cantrips. Animate dead at the snap of a finger... Sure... You are a freaking legendary necromancer.... Seems about perfect to me. The legendary evoker could hurl fireballs all day. But at 17, that's hardly an issue. Your epic level... Be epic...

This would require a paths of power style rewrite but it would be super flavorful and reward specialist.

That being said I doubt we will see anything that radical.. I'll settle for arcanist. I think this is basically a modern assumption in New rpgs. Too much arcanist/5e/computer rpgs to put the vancian spell slots on a good place in light of these systems used elsewhere

This seems like a really neat idea for Wizards, for whom spell schools have long been a big deal, thematically. I'm not sure it applies as well to something like Clerics, where the school is largely irrelevant thematically because I'm pretty sure a god can figure out how to grant both Conjuration and Evocation spells effectively.

Neat idea, though! Lots of interesting ideas in this thread. It's hard to really know how ambitious to get without an idea of just how much Paizo's willing to alter at this point in development.

I think for Clerics spells you need to look at 2e D&d. Specialty Clerics could only cast spells from their gods domains called spheres. Your God didnt like fire.. You didn't get flame strike... Etc etc. I think you could divide gods domains into spheres for spell purposes. If you have the domain you are expert in it and it goes up as you level. Spells are one level less. The spheres related to the other domains in your gods portfolio that you didn't select you are trained in and go up slower.

Honest I think limiting cleric spells based on what your God does is a good way to limit the CoDzilla nonsense of yore. When D&d got away from that is when Clerics became busted beyond belief. And I think it is super thematic and a nice way to differentiate your cleric from another.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If we are talking radical rewrites of the spell system why not tie it into the proficiency system. Make every spell or power tied to a school/sphere Ala 2nd edition. You have a proficiency rank in every school appropriate for your spell list. The spell level of the spell is the base level for someone trained in that school. If you are untrained, the spell requires a spell slot of higher. If you are an expert it requires a spell slot lower. And that reduction continues until legendary. But getting to legendary in a spell proficiency requires specialization. So a legendary necromancer at 17 would make all 1-3 level necromancy spells into cantrips. Animate dead at the snap of a finger... Sure... You are a freaking legendary necromancer.... Seems about perfect to me. The legendary evoker could hurl fireballs all day. But at 17, that's hardly an issue. Your epic level... Be epic...

This would require a paths of power style rewrite but it would be super flavorful and reward specialist.

That being said I doubt we will see anything that radical.. I'll settle for arcanist. I think this is basically a modern assumption in New rpgs. Too much arcanist/5e/computer rpgs to put the vancian spell slots on a good place in light of these systems used elsewhere

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Had anyone figured out a way to build an alchemical archer? Want to build an archery that shoots bombs via bow etc? Thanks

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stream announced they are cleaning up dents. Your shield can't take more than one dent per hit. Period. Rule will read if the hit takes more than hardness you take the extra and it takes one dent. All stop.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:

3) cleric bonus spells will be adjusted so that none of them are divine

How do you mean? Like allowing Clerics to get domain spells that they couldn't get as normal spells?

Some domains gave spells that were already on the divine list so they actually got nothing

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.

They also announced that not in the next update but the update afterwards we are getting multiclass archetypes for the other 8 classes!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It ensures that character creation methods produce similar ranges. The default character building doesn't alow for the possibility of over 18. You get four set of raises and the best you can get to is 18. By putting in the cap it allows the potential option for other build methods( rolling dice etc) without breaking the hard limit the default method imposes based on the math

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't agree with this more. Always liked stun/body split in champions and while this doesn't have the same problem ie unconscious foes it's even better. Allows for interesting options such as a party that's injured pushing forward on few hp but full stamina points. Simulates injured but heroic effort that straight hp doesnt

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) all casters become arcanist style. Can heighten on the fly. Sorcerers can use their limited special ability to heighten to raise a spell one level higher than effective than they can cast.

2) all players get 3 Ancestry Feats at 1st and when they would get an Ancestry feat they get an extra class feat

3) remove magic weapon bonus dice and make it tied to level 4/8/12/16/20

4) add heal to occult list

5) simple hand waive the lawful good restriction on paladins. Any pc playing a non LG paladin I would refer them code wise to the code of conduct found in the 1e Champions series of splat books

6) make up new Mc Feats and homebrew prestige chains

But I'm pretty happy over all with it. I think the core math is better than most. I like dangerous combat and the economy reminds me of what was right with 4e without the duldrum of the power system

Ps. Make a hero lab style character sheet... The old 1e hero lab sheet is simple but it's so easy to read.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It is my sincere hope that in Pathfinder 2nd edition we at some point get a straight up spontaneous casting druid. Like "can't wear metal armor, friends with a bear, wild-shaping" druid who casts spontaneously rather than a Primal Sorcerer (who could run around in full plate kicking puppies if they wanted.)

Since I love Druids, I feel like I grok them thematically in a way that I do few other classes, and I have tons of character ideas for them, but I don't play them since I just can't handle prepared casters. I mean, I can do it but the analysis paralysis of "what spells do I prepare" just makes the game unfun (since I'm always sure I picked the wrong ones.) So I just play anything else.

So anything that reduces the emphasis on "make the right decisions at breakfast; you cannot take them back" is welcome.

True Story... Our cleric's player in our 8 year 3.5e game had a spreadsheet that selected spells for him based on questions he would ask during an augur with his God every morning. He'd burn a 5th level spell to speak to his God and ask generic questions like will I be leaving the plane or confronting the undead. Based on the gms answer the spreadsheet filled in his spells..... Super flavorful but obviously any system that requires an algorithm to select your spells is busted at the core.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Another post reminded me to ask this: does anyone else think that the prepared casters should look more like the arcanist from 1e or casters from 5e D&d? Seems a logical and elegant solution to simplifying the game while keeping the flavor of memorizing/praying for spells. It allows easier heightening of spells a d allows those classes to still have access to huge amounts of spells to choose from each day, but the player needs to choose wisely.

For those that don't know how this is done in 5e, casters memorize x spells a day, but don't memorize them into spell slots. When they are cast they choose the slot to cast it in so long as it's at least the minimum level of the spell.

I know this would require at least the sorcerer to be reworked a little, but I feel the real flavor of the sorcerer comes from the bloodline options and maybe having more spells known than a wizard could memorize in a day.

What does everyone else think? If you would like to see this please post below saying so. If not or you have concerns please post as well. I'd like to take the pulse of the crowd on this as I think it might be something that we still have time to change without requiring the design team to reinvent the wheel so to speak.

Thanks.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm all for this change. I firmly belive that 5e/arcanist got spell slots right for the first time in D&d. It allows for memorizing/praying to be part of the rote while aligning with the fictional narrative more. It's very hard outside of gamist theory and Vance actual stories to justify memorized spells into certain slots.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:

4) Class Feats and general feats

There is no plan currently to make class feats into general feats

They kind of already did this design space with the archetype/multiclass feats. It makes no sense to include further class-poaching rules. If they were gonna do that, they'd make building a character entirely freeform, with characters only being "classes" in name only, and you building them with whatever mechanics you want that the rules provided.
"Class poaching" is kind of a strong phrase. Most of the push I've seen has been for giving the Fighter and Barbarian actual class feats and letting other people get some combat-focused feats without a tax.

I watched the show. What Mark said was they weren't going to make things like Double slice free to everyone to take, because they don't think a one size fits all option is right. He mentioned they need to add more options, and will, like a rogue 2 weapon attack. He also mentioned that the ranger 2 weapon attack might be different from double slice to be more flavorful. Basically, once they add more content in the class feats, we will see support for more combat styles spread out among the classes, but not necessarily the same way for each class.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know some have mentioned that magic weapons are crucial to the game as is because you can't keep up with damage levels otherwise. What is the increase to damage was tied to your proficiency. Base damage is trained, 2 dice at expert, 3 at master, 5 at legendary(or possibly 4, but 5 feels more legendary). What does anyone think this would do to the math?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like it quite bit. Think it has potential to rise above the issues that 3.x system had and really be a fun system

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Carry over from another thread. I said the following.

"On the one hand you have people who view the game as a puzzle to be solved. How can I make the best X to win all of the things. The rules, to them, are the game.

On the other hand you have the people who view the game as an interactive story that they expect to not be a simple "win" or "lose" kind of proposition. The rules, to them, serve the setting.

Obviously with people who fall in the grey area in between.

When I hear about someone trying to argue for bound genies with no risk granting bonuses, I want to throw a book at them. You are, to me manipulating the rules to break the setting.

When someone else hears me say "You can't do that" to something they think is RAW, to them, I am cheating and being cruel.

I fall very strongly on the side of the rules serve the setting, rather than the setting serving the rules."

1. Do you agree that this is a fair dividing line (with lots of people who fall into grey areas between on various issues)

2. Which side of the debate are you generally on. In other words, do you believe the rules serve the setting or that the setting serves the rules.

I think the Rules are simply an interpretation of the Story of the Setting. They are by no means the only way to interprete the story, but the Story(Setting) is the important.

You could run Golarion in PF, 4e, Savage worlds, etc, etc... and while they all use different mechanics, all they are doing is giving you a mechanical way of representing what is happening in the story. None of them are "correct", they just focus on different aspects of the story.

I see this coming up with people doing conversions alot. For a long time, people have been trying to convert the MTG setting to a RPG. Everytime they do it, they always want to recreate the MTG mechanics in an existing game by making new rules. What they often fail to see is that the existing game almost always has rules for something like that expressed another way. No need to make a First Strike mechanic that works exactly like MTG, when Improved Initiative in D&D does the same thing from a story standpoint. They both represent going first to strike in battle.

Game rules are just the conflict resolution mechanic that makes it a game and not a joint literature project.